A teleconference hearing to discuss the wording of Alan Murdock’s amended dismissal appeal notice and whether it can be made public eventually led to Murdock airing his grievances.
Hearing officer Jay Watson held the hearing on Aug. 21, with Murdock, Moose Jaw Police Service lawyer Destiny Gibney, and a court stenographer on the line, along with dozens of other parties listening in.
Watson reviewed the amended dismissal appeal document and all 29 allegations in it, along with whether Murdock’s wording of the dismissal was valid. The hearing officer said that for each allegation, he either would accept the amendment or it could be edited to say “I deny the allegation” or “This is a false allegation.”
“Mr. Murdock, when I say that it doesn’t have to be there and if I rule that parts of your submissions are to be removed, I can tell you that it doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to make that argument at the hearing, nor does it mean that you can’t adduce any evidence to show what you referred to there,” Watson said. “It simply means as pleadings, it doesn’t need to be there in that document.”
Gibney questioned some of the solutions Watson offered to make the amended dismissal motions more easily understandable.
The parts left in to show “intentionality of the actions” by Murdock need to be clear, she said, so that police Chief Rick Bourassa understands whether the dismissed officer is admitting the action or denying the action.
“A denial of the intentionality appears to us to be an admission of the action,” she said. “We shouldn’t have to guess what the case is going to be.”
While Gibney attempted to discuss the police service’s concerns further, her statements became inaudible at times since she was on speakerphone and there was audio feedback.
After discussing other aspects of the document, Watson asked Murdock if he had any further comments.
“The wording (of the dismissal document) has been challenged by Chief Bourassa, similar to everything else I’ve submitted for the past seven months,” Murdock said.
Gibney sent Murdock an email on June 8 saying if he wanted the decision reviewed, he had to file a notice of appeal and state why the decision was wrong, which would be his case or grounds for appeal, he continued. The notice of appeal sets out the reasons why he believes the original decision is incorrect, with those reasons forming the basis of the appeal.
“My amended notice of appeal does just that,” Murdock remarked. “It states why I believe the decision was wrong, the reasons why the original decision is inaccurate, using whichever reasons I provide.”
Murdock received another email on June 16 from Gibney, who suggested his appeal should state which of the police chief’s determinations and grounds for dismissals are wrong and his reasons for saying so. Murdock pointed out he did that in his amended notice of motion.
“This process has been unnecessarily delayed because police Chief Bourassa and Ms. Gibney have challenged every step of my appeal since I chose to represent myself last January,” Murdock said.
Murdock had asked for all relevant evidence during the past seven months that was originally given to his former counsel, but had been denied since the police service had withheld the information, he continued. However, he had reviewed the disclosure with his former lawyer, which is where he found proof of “exaggerated, embellished, and even fabricated information.”
Gibney then objected to Murdock’s rant, telling Watson that while Murdock wanted to speak on certain topics, if he was going to discuss the case itself or allege that information had been embellished, then the police service had a problem with that.
Watson allowed Murdock to finish and then told both parties he would make his final ruling on the amended notice of appeal and send a final version, before the three-week dismissal appeal hearing begins on Monday, Aug. 31 at Grant Hall.
